What? No wine? The Bishop of Phoenix Thomas Olmsted is crossing wine out of Communion at most Masses, limiting how often the chalice is offered to holy days and special occasions, writes Michael Clancy at the Arizona Republic.

Olmsted bases his unique decision on the Church's new translation of the liturgy for the Mass, called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and other church documents, which he says don't really require folks in the pews have wine as part of the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine, when blessed by the priest, become the body and blood of Christ.

The new Missal -- a more formal, literally translated text and melodies for the prayers, chants and responses in the Mass -- goes into use in the English-speaking world Nov. 27, the first Sunday of Advent.

two steps back.

Quote

The diocesan release didn't say how soon Phoenix Catholics could expect to see less of the chalice.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Is receiving both bread and wine a necessary part of Eastern Catholic practice?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.

That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.

That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd. I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity. Neither practice is forbidden.

[quote author=elijahmaria link=topic=39802.msg643348#msg643348 date=1316894649That is absurd. I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity. Neither practice is forbidden. [/quote]

THe practice of receiving in one kind only is forbidden. When Christ says "Do this" at the Last Supper, He's not giving us a choice as to which we prefer otherwise He would have said "Do one or the other--it doesn't matter for it's still Me". The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

Btw, this started what was the first WRO movement: the Utraquist church of Bohemia approached the Orthodox to be received, as they shared the insistence of communion under both kinds. They also had insisted on the Council of Constance calling the Orthodox, which was refused (although a schismatic bishop propted up by the secular powers of Lithuania, "Met." Gregory Tsamblas "of Kiev and All Rus'" was sent and received at Constance, and never heard of again). IIRC, this was one of things the "Union" of Brest was supposed to guarentee.So yes, EM, by the Orthodox canons of the Catholic Church that Brest was supposed to preserve, it is forbidden.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Btw, this started what was the first WRO movement: the Utraquist church of Bohemia approached the Orthodox to be received, as they shared the insistence of communion under both kinds. They also had insisted on the Council of Constance calling the Orthodox, which was refused (although a schismatic bishop propted up by the secular powers of Lithuania, "Met." Gregory Tsamblas "of Kiev and All Rus'" was sent and received at Constance, and never heard of again). IIRC, this was one of things the "Union" of Brest was supposed to guarentee.So yes, EM, by the Orthodox canons of the Catholic Church that Brest was supposed to preserve, it is forbidden.

The comment was made to a Roman rite individual, whose Tridentine tradition is single species. I had hoped that that particular tradition would be eventually overturned, which it has been, albeit in a limited way, as now in Phoenix. My guess is that not all Roman rite bishops will follow his lead.

The Roman Catholic Church has been wrong for hundreds of years insisting on communion of one kind only, a practice which has been consistently rejected and repudiated by the Holy Orthodox Church.

So even our infants receive both Body and Blood?

Why not?

I don't know. That's why I asked.

Oh, ok I'm not sure of the particulars... I've taken two daughters to communion sporadically, but never really paid attention to that (I was more focused on keeping them from getting fidgety and causing an accident!)... though I think (?) they give them a bit of wine, and not really a piece of bread (?) but it's assumed that there are some small crums/particles of the bread in the wine.

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.

That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd. I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity. Neither practice is forbidden.

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.

That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd. I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity. Neither practice is forbidden.

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.

This makes no sense with respect to calling lubeltri a cafeteria Catholic.

Calling a Roman rite Catholic a cafeteria Catholic for engaging a perfectly acceptable practice in the Roman rite is an absurdity.

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

And there have definitely been abuses in that area. My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!

(And in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't because he was disabled or ill - he'd had no trouble at all walking up and down the aisle to shake everyone's hand during the Sign of Peace, or in walking out for the final procession.)

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

I suspect Bishop Olmstead is doing this so he can then cut back on the number of Extraordinary Ministers at each Mass. After all, if the Eucharist is only offered under one species, you don't need as many EMs.

And there have definitely been abuses in that area. My husband and I (who are Byzantine Catholic) were horrified when we went to Mass at a church in Phoenix a few years ago, and *only* the EMs distributed the Eucharist - while the priest sat at the altar!

(And in case you're wondering, no, it wasn't because he was disabled or ill - he'd had no trouble at all walking up and down the aisle to shake everyone's hand during the Sign of Peace, or in walking out for the final procession.)

You are probably right. And he's not banned the chalice, simply restricted its use.

Missing on that list of feasts and occasions is Easter. I thought that was very odd. The one day out of the year where a longer-than-an-hour mass should NOT be a problem...

Well, that may be, Mary, but I gotta be honest here: as a witness to some truly jaw-dropping liturgical abuses in the Phoenix diocese over the past 20+ years (while visiting family), I have to give props to Bishop Olmstead for at least *trying* to change things.

Before I knew there was such a thing as an Eastern Rite church, I learned to be grateful for any priest I came across in the area who did NOT start the Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining me in celebrating the Liturgy today!"* or earnestly explaining to us for the 10,000,000th time that "Eucharist" means "thanksgiving"! or leaving the altar to shake hands with, or hug, every single person in the pews during the Sign of Peace, or ad-libbing the words of the Consecration so they'd refer back to a point he'd made during his homily, or sticking out his tongue at anyone who tried to receive Communion on the tongue, or any one of a hundred abuses I can't quite recall now.

I remember how grateful I was to cross the border into California on the way home, because as hard as this may be to believe, the abuses in the Southern California RC churches were nowhere near as bad as the ones in Arizona - at least not in the churches I attended.

So go Bishop Olmstead! you can't make it any worse than it was!

*note: this was INSTEAD of making the Sign of the Cross at the beginning of the Mass!

« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:24:47 PM by theistgal »

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Well, that may be, Mary, but I gotta be honest here: as a witness to some truly jaw-dropping liturgical abuses in the Phoenix diocese over the past 20+ years (while visiting family), I have to give props to Bishop Olmstead for at least *trying* to change things.

Before I knew there was such a thing as an Eastern Rite church, I learned to be grateful for any priest I came across in the area who did NOT start the Mass with a hearty, "Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining me in celebrating the Liturgy today!"* or earnestly explaining to us for the 10,000,000th time that "Eucharist" means "thanksgiving"! or leaving the altar to shake hands with, or hug, every single person in the pews during the Sign of Peace, or ad-libbing the words of the Consecration so they'd refer back to a point he'd made during his homily, or sticking out his tongue at anyone who tried to receive Communion on the tongue, or any one of a hundred abuses I can't quite recall now.

I remember how grateful I was to cross the border into California on the way home, because as hard as this may be to believe, the abuses in the Southern California RC churches were nowhere near as bad as the ones in Arizona - at least not in the churches I attended.

So go Bishop Olmstead! you can't make it any worse than it was!

*note: this was INSTEAD of making the Sign of the Cross at the beginning of the Mass!

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).

Receiving in one kind is no different in terms of the reality than receiving in both. Unfortunately I run across too many people who think there is a difference, as if they are "receiving less Jesus" or that it's "unfair" that the priests gets "the full" Jesus and they don't.

Alas I also see too many horrible abuses arising from 300 laity routinely drinking out of cups from too many lay "cup" ministers, and out of principle I refrain.

If we have communion in both species, then we should switch to intinction (and NOT self-intinction, alas I've seen quite a bit of that too!).

Please. I receive only in one kind. BY CHOICE. Good for Bishop Olmstead.

That's known as being a cafeteria Catholic.

That is absurd. I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all, but to say that about a person who chooses to receive under one species or to receive kneeling is just an absurdity. Neither practice is forbidden.

The issue really isn't what is permitted or forbidden, but what is abusive. Anglicans have always permitted communion in one kind because there are those who cannot take it otherwise; but from the beginning we have stuck to the dominical ordinance of bread and wine, ordinarily taken separately. From our perspective routinely communing in bread alone is an abuse of the same ilk as routinely using extraordinary ministers.

It's hard to tell whether this is about differentiation, or a bit of canonical legalism. I'm going to lean on the former simply because that has been the pattern in a lot of recent changes: there seems to be preference now, if there is a choice between a practice or text which only Catholics do and one which is shared with other churches, to reject the latter.

This makes no sense with respect to calling lubeltri a cafeteria Catholic.

Calling a Roman rite Catholic a cafeteria Catholic for engaging a perfectly acceptable practice in the Roman rite is an absurdity.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28

In Orthodox tradition one isn't required to have both either. I made the same assertion as you once and was told off on it by someone far more knowledgable than my self, I have since seen several people only receive the one kind.

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

ENOUGH SAID!

Of course Catholics will tell you the his Body also contains His blood as well but Christ offers his disciples both species at the Last Supper.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt 26:26-28

In Orthodox tradition one isn't required to have both either. I made the same assertion as you once and was told off on it by someone far more knowledgable than my self, I have since seen several people only receive the one kind.

It is however our tradition that both are offered.

It is required so far as outside of a rare communion of the sick or at the celebration pre-sanctified gifts (wine is not consecrated)...one can not commune of one species alone. Infants are given the blood of Christ which invariably has the particle of the Body from inside the chalice.

Quote

With Roman Catholics....A substantial deviation from Orthodoxy lies also in the fact that the laity are deprived of the holy Chalice, that is, they are deprived of communion of the immaculate Blood of Christ, contrary to the Lord's direct words: "drink ye ALL of it". This innovation was first allowed in the West in the twelfth century, with the aim of showing the superiority of the clergy over the laity in the very communion; later it was confirmed at the Council of Trent. In justification of their deviation, Roman Catholic theologians thought up some pretexts, such as, "there is no necessity for the laity to commune of the Holy Blood separately because where the Body is given, there the Blood is given", or "when there is a multitude of communicants, it is easy to jostle and spill the Chalice."

The Lord's words,"Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53), confirm the correctness of the Orthodox method of performing the sacrament - under both species. The teaching on the necessity for everyone to commune under two species is also clearly expressed in the apostolic epistles (see, for example, I Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:26-30). And the patristic works testify against the Roman practice. Saint John Chrysostom (fourth century) says, "we are all equally counted worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ - not as happened in the Old Testament: the priest would eat some parts of the sacrifice and the people would eat other parts. Now it is not so, but one Body and one Cup is offered to everyone.."

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

My comments stand. The "not giving" is a part of the western tradition. I think they should be allowed to exercise that tradition without being reviled.

I am not suggesting that you are. I accept your disagreement. I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted. However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

heretical and non-canonical practices are not a tradition in the Orthodox Cathoic sense of the word. That is why the WRO don't do it.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't like to see the reversion to the older tradition of one species at all,

Receiving under both kinds would be the older tradition.

While I agree that Christ is fully present in both the Body and the Blood, reception under one kind should be the exception (and only for a particular reason) and not the rule.

Unless you are within the western tradition who offers under one species for reasons of its own that seem compelling enough to me.

I find it fascinating that the west is reviled here, and in scathing terms, for trying to destroy or subvert or submerge the traditions of the east and yet the active members of this forum spend many many words returning the favor with impunity.

It's not an anti-western thing. It's a "not giving" of one of the Holy "Gifts" thing.

I criticize the practice of infrequent Communion in my own Church for a similar reason.

I am not suggesting that you are. I accept your disagreement. I also have reservations about that tradition, as I have noted. However...I do recognize that it is a part of the Roman rite and tradition.

part of the decay of that rite and tradition, like the loss of the epiclesis.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.That is how it is offered here in Greece.

Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.That is how it is offered here in Greece.

Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

Actually there is a special "intinction chalice" you can get, with a cup for the wine and a sort of "moat" around it for the bread - like this one:

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.That is how it is offered here in Greece.

Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

Actually there is a special "intinction chalice" you can get, with a cup for the wine and a sort of "moat" around it for the bread - like this one:

24-kt gold? Must be pretty expensive. Where can I pick one up?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Intinction (dipping the bread in the wine) would be the way to go, no extra ministers required and you get to receive both.That is how it is offered here in Greece.

Don't you still need two ministers for intinction, one (the priest) to hold the host, the other (e.g., the deacon) to hold the chalice, with the priest 'dipping' the host in the chalice and 'giving' it to the communicant?

No, not in the churches I go to. the priest holds them both in one hand.